The field of the present invention relates to the delivery of energy impulses (and/or fields) to bodily tissues for therapeutic purposes. It relates more specifically to the use of non-invasive devices, such as electrical nerve stimulation devices and magnetic stimulation devices, along with methods of treating medical disorders using energy that is delivered by such devices. The disorders comprise migraine and other primary headaches such as cluster headaches, including sinus symptoms that resemble an immune-mediated response (“sinus” headaches), irrespective of whether those symptoms arise from an allergy that is co-morbid with the headache. The methods may also be used to treat other disorders that may be co-morbid with migraine headaches, such as anxiety disorders in which the nervous system may also be hyper-reactive and in which attacks may be triggered by some of the same factors that trigger migraine and asthma attacks. In preferred embodiments of the disclosed methods, one or both of the patient's vagus nerves are stimulated non-invasively. In other embodiments, parts of the sympathetic nervous system and/or the adrenal glands are stimulated.
Treatments for various infirmities sometime require the destruction of otherwise healthy tissue in order to produce a beneficial effect. Malfunctioning tissue is identified and then lesioned or otherwise compromised in order to produce a beneficial outcome, rather than attempting to repair the tissue to its normal functionality. A variety of techniques and mechanisms have been designed to produce focused lesions directly in target nerve tissue, but collateral damage is inevitable.
Other treatments for malfunctioning tissue can be medicinal in nature, but in many cases the patients become dependent upon artificially synthesized chemicals. In many cases, these medicinal approaches have side effects that are either unknown or quite significant. Unfortunately, the beneficial outcomes of surgery and medicines are often realized at the cost of function of other tissues, or risks of side effects.
The use of electrical stimulation for treatment of medical conditions has been well known in the art for nearly two thousand years. It has been recognized that electrical stimulation of the brain and/or the peripheral nervous system and/or direct stimulation of the malfunctioning tissue holds significant promise for the treatment of many ailments, because such stimulation is generally a wholly reversible and non-destructive treatment.
Nerve stimulation is thought to be accomplished directly or indirectly by depolarizing a nerve membrane, causing the discharge of an action potential; or by hyperpolarization of a nerve membrane, preventing the discharge of an action potential. Such stimulation may occur after electrical energy, or also other forms of energy, are transmitted to the vicinity of a nerve [F. RATTAY. The basic mechanism for the electrical stimulation of the nervous system. Neuroscience 89 (2, 1999):335-346; Thomas HEIMBURG and Andrew D. Jackson. On soliton propagation in biomembranes and nerves. PNAS 102 (28, 2005): 9790-9795]. Nerve stimulation may be measured directly as an increase, decrease, or modulation of the activity of nerve fibers, or it may be inferred from the physiological effects that follow the transmission of energy to the nerve fibers.
One of the most successful applications of modern understanding of the electrophysiological relationship between muscle and nerves is the cardiac pacemaker. Although origins of the cardiac pacemaker extend back into the 1800's, it was not until 1950 that the first practical, albeit external and bulky, pacemaker was developed. The first truly functional, wearable pacemaker appeared in 1957, and in 1960, the first fully implantable pacemaker was developed.
Around this time, it was also found that electrical leads could be connected to the heart through veins, which eliminated the need to open the chest cavity and attach the lead to the heart wall. In 1975 the introduction of the lithium-iodide battery prolonged the battery life of a pacemaker from a few months to more than a decade. The modern pacemaker can treat a variety of different signaling pathologies in the cardiac muscle, and can serve as a defibrillator as well (see U.S. Pat. No. 6,738,667 to DENO, et al., the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference).
Another application of electrical stimulation of nerves has been the treatment of radiating pain in the lower extremities by stimulating the sacral nerve roots at the bottom of the spinal cord (see U.S. Pat. No. 6,871,099 to WHITEHURST, et al., the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference).
Electrical stimulation of the brain with implanted electrodes has also been approved for use in the treatment of various conditions, including movement disorders such as essential tremor and Parkinson's disease. The principle underlying these approaches involves disruption and modulation of hyperactive neuronal circuit transmission at specific sites in the brain. Unlike potentially dangerous lesioning procedures in which aberrant portions of the brain are physically destroyed, electrical stimulation is achieved by implanting electrodes at these sites. The electrodes are used first to sense aberrant electrical signals and then to send electrical pulses to locally disrupt pathological neuronal transmission, driving it back into the normal range of activity. These electrical stimulation procedures, while invasive, are generally conducted with the patient conscious and a participant in the surgery.
However, brain stimulation, and deep brain stimulation in particular, is not without some drawbacks. The procedure requires penetrating the skull, and inserting an electrode into brain matter using a catheter-shaped lead, or the like. While monitoring the patient's condition (such as tremor activity, etc.), the position of the electrode is adjusted to achieve significant therapeutic potential. Next, adjustments are made to the electrical stimulus signals, such as frequency, periodicity, voltage, current, etc., again to achieve therapeutic results. The electrode is then permanently implanted, and wires are directed from the electrode to the site of a surgically implanted pacemaker. The pacemaker provides the electrical stimulus signals to the electrode to maintain the therapeutic effect. While the therapeutic results of deep brain stimulation are promising, significant complications may arise from the implantation procedure, including stroke induced by damage to surrounding tissues and the neuro-vasculature.
Most of the above-mentioned applications of electrical stimulation involve the surgical implantation of electrodes within a patient. In contrast, for embodiments of the present invention, the disclosed devices and medical procedures stimulate nerves by transmitting energy to nerves and tissue non-invasively. They may offer the patient an alternative that does not involve surgery. A medical procedure is defined as being non-invasive when no break in the skin (or other surface of the body, such as a wound bed) is created through use of the method, and when there is no contact with an internal body cavity beyond a body orifice (e.g., beyond the mouth or beyond the external auditory meatus of the ear). Such non-invasive procedures are distinguished from invasive procedures (including minimally invasive procedures) in that invasive procedures do involve inserting a substance or device into or through the skin or into an internal body cavity beyond a body orifice. For example, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is non-invasive because it involves attaching electrodes to the surface of the skin (or using a form-fitting conductive garment) without breaking the skin. In contrast, percutaneous electrical stimulation of a nerve is minimally invasive because it involves the introduction of an electrode under the skin, via needle-puncture of the skin (see commonly assigned co-pending US Patent Application 2010/0241188, entitled Percutaneous Electrical Treatment of Tissue to ERRICO et al, which is hereby incorporated by reference).
Potential advantages of non-invasive medical methods and devices relative to comparable invasive procedures are as follows. The patient may be more psychologically prepared to experience a procedure that is non-invasive and may therefore be more cooperative, resulting in a better outcome. Non-invasive procedures may avoid damage of biological tissues, such as that due to bleeding, infection, skin or internal organ injury, blood vessel injury, and vein or lung blood clotting. Non-invasive procedures generally present fewer problems with biocompatibility. In cases involving the attachment of electrodes, non-invasive methods have less of a tendency for breakage of leads, and the electrodes can be easily repositioned if necessary. Non-invasive methods are sometimes painless or only minimally painful and may be performed without the need for even local anesthesia. Less training may be required for use of non-invasive procedures by medical professionals. In view of the reduced risk ordinarily associated with non-invasive procedures, some such procedures may be suitable for use by the patient or family members at home or by first-responders at home or at a workplace, and the cost of non-invasive procedures may be reduced relative to comparable invasive procedures.
Electrodes that are applied non-invasively to the surface of the body have a long history, including electrodes that were used to stimulate underlying nerves [L. A. GEDDES. Historical Evolution of Circuit Models for the Electrode-Electrolyte Interface. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 25 (1997):1-14]. However, electrical stimulation of nerves in general fell into disfavor in middle of the twentieth century, until the “gate theory of pain” was introduced by Melzack and Wall in 1965. This theory, along with advances in electronics, reawakened interest in the use of implanted electrodes to stimulate nerves, initially to control pain. Screening procedures were then developed to determine suitable candidates for electrode implantation, which involved first determining whether the patient responded when stimulated with electrodes applied to the surface of the body in the vicinity of the possible implant. It was subsequently found that the surface stimulation often controlled pain so well that there was no need to implant a stimulating electrode [Charles Burton and Donald D. Maurer. Pain Suppression by Transcutaneous Electronic Stimulation. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering BME-21(2, 1974): 81-88]. Such non-invasive transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was then developed for treating different types of pain, including pain in a joint or lower back, cancer pain, post-operative pain, post-traumatic pain, and pain associated with labor and delivery [Steven E. ABRAM. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation. pp 1-10 in: Joel B. Myklebust, ed. Neural stimulation (Volume 2). Boca Raton, Fla. CRC Press 1985; WALSH D M, Lowe A S, McCormack K. Willer J-C, Baxter G D, Allen J M. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: effect on peripheral nerve conduction, mechanical pain threshold, and tactile threshold in humans. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79 (1998):1051-1058; J A CAMPBELL. A critical appraisal of the electrical output characteristics of ten transcutaneous nerve stimulators. Clin. phys. Physiol. Meas. 3(2, 1982): 141-150; U.S. Pat. No. 3,817,254, entitled Transcutaneous stimulator and stimulation method, to Maurer; U.S. Pat. No. 4,324,253, entitled Transcutaneous pain control and/or muscle stimulating apparatus, to Greene et al; U.S. Pat. No. 4,503,863, entitled Method and apparatus for transcutaneous electrical stimulation, to Katims; U.S. Pat. No. 5,052,391, entitled High frequency high intensity transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator and method of treatment, to Silberstone et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,351,674, entitled Method for inducing electroanesthesia using high frequency, high intensity transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, to Silverstone].
As TENS was being developed to treat pain, non-invasive electrical stimulation using surface electrodes was simultaneously developed for additional therapeutic or diagnostic purposes, which are known collectively as electrotherapy. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) stimulates normally innervated muscle in an effort to augment strength and endurance of normal (e.g., athletic) or damaged (e.g., spastic) muscle. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is used to activate nerves innervating muscle affected by paralysis resulting from spinal cord injury, head injury, stroke and other neurological disorders, or muscle affected by foot drop and gait disorders. FES is also used to stimulate muscle as an orthotic substitute, e.g., replace a brace or support in scoliosis management. Another application of surface electrical stimulation is chest-to-back stimulation of tissue, such as emergency defibrillation and cardiac pacing. Surface electrical stimulation has also been used to repair tissue, by increasing circulation through vasodilation, by controlling edema, by healing wounds, and by inducing bone growth. Surface electrical stimulation is also used for iontophoresis, in which electrical currents drive electrically charged drugs or other ions into the skin, usually to treat inflammation and pain, arthritis, wounds or scars. Stimulation with surface electrodes is also used to evoke a response for diagnostic purposes, for example in peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) that evaluates the ability of motor and sensory nerves to conduct and produce reflexes. Surface electrical stimulation is also used in electroconvulsive therapy to treat psychiatric disorders; electroanesthesia, for example, to prevent pain from dental procedures; and electrotactile speech processing to convert sound into tactile sensation for the hearing impaired. All of the above-mentioned applications of surface electrode stimulation are intended not to damage the patient, but if higher currents are used with special electrodes, electrosurgery may be performed as a means to cut, coagulate, desiccate, or fulgurate tissue [Mark R. Prausnitz. The effects of electric current applied to skin: A review for transdermal drug delivery. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 18 (1996) 395-425].
Despite its attractiveness, non-invasive electrical stimulation of a nerve is not always possible or practical. This is primarily because the current state of the art may not be able to stimulate a deep nerve selectively or without producing excessive pain, since the stimulation may unintentionally stimulate nerves other than the nerve of interest, including nerves that cause pain. For this reason, forms of electrical stimulation other than TENS may be best suited for the treatment of particular types of pain [Paul F. WHITE, shitong Li and Jen W. Chiu. Electroanalgesia: Its Role in Acute and Chronic Pain Management. Anesth Analg 92 (2001):505-13].
For some other electrotherapeutic applications, it has also been difficult to perform non-invasive stimulation of a nerve, in lieu of stimulating that nerve invasively. The therapies most relevant to the present invention involve electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve in the neck, which was developed initially for the treatment of epilepsy. The left vagus nerve is ordinarily stimulated at a location within the neck by first surgically implanting an electrode there, then connecting the electrode to an electrical stimulator [U.S. Pat. No. 4,702,254 entitled Neurocybernetic prosthesis, to ZABARA; U.S. Pat. No. 6,341,236 entitled Vagal nerve stimulation techniques for treatment of epileptic seizures, to OSORIO et al and U.S. Pat. No. 5,299,569 entitled Treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders by nerve stimulation, to WERNICKE et al; G. C. ALBERT, C. M. Cook, F. S. Prato, A. W. Thomas. Deep brain stimulation, vagal nerve stimulation and transcranial stimulation: An overview of stimulation parameters and neurotransmitter release. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 33 (2009) 1042-1060; GROVES D A, Brown V J. Vagal nerve stimulation: a review of its applications and potential mechanisms that mediate its clinical effects. Neurosci Biobehav Rev (2005) 29:493-500; Reese TERRY, Jr. Vagus nerve stimulation: a proven therapy for treatment of epilepsy strives to improve efficacy and expand applications. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009; 2009:4631-4634; Timothy B. MAPSTONE. Vagus nerve stimulation: current concepts. Neurosurg Focus 25 (3, 2008):E9, pp. 1-4].
When it is desired to avoid the surgical implantation of an electrode, vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) may be performed less invasively by positioning one or more electrodes in the esophagus, trachea, or jugular vein, but with one electrode positioned on the surface of the body [U.S. Pat. No. 7,340,299, entitled Methods of indirectly stimulating the vagus nerve to achieve controlled asystole, to PUSKAS; and U.S. Pat. No. 7,869,884, entitled Non-surgical device and methods for trans-esophageal vagus nerve stimulation, to SCOTT et al]. Despite their advantage as being non-surgical, such methods nevertheless exhibit other disadvantages associated with invasive procedures.
In other patents, non-invasive VNS is disclosed, but at a location other than in the neck [e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 4,865,048, entitled Method and apparatus for drug free neurostimulation, to ECKERSON; U.S. Pat. No. 6,609,025 entitled Treatment of obesity by bilateral sub-diaphragmatic nerve stimulation to BARRETT et al; U.S. Pat. No. 5,458,625, entitled Transcutaneous nerve stimulation device and method for using same, to KENDALL; U.S. Pat. No. 7,386,347, entitled Electric stimulator for alpha-wave derivation, to Chung et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,797,042, entitled Device for applying a transcutaneous stimulus or for transcutaneous measuring of a parameter, to Dietrich et al.; patent application US2010/0057154, entitled Device and Method for the Transdermal Stimulation of a Nerve of the Human Body, to Dietrich et al; US2006/0122675, entitled Stimulator for auricular branch of vagus nerve, to Libbus et al; US2008/0288016, entitled Systems and Methods for Stimulating Neural Targets, to Amurthur et al]. However, because such non-invasive VNS occurs at a location other than the neck, it is not directly comparable to invasive VNS in the neck, for which therapeutic results are well documented. Among other patents and patent applications, non-invasive VNS is sometimes mentioned along with invasive VNS methods, but without addressing the problem of unintentional stimulation of nerves other than the vagus nerve, particularly nerves that cause pain [e.g., US20080208266, entitled System and Method for Treating Nausea and Vomiting by Vagus Nerve Stimulation, to LESSER et al]. Other patents are vague as to how non-invasive electrical stimulation in the vicinity of the vagus nerve in the neck is to be accomplished [e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 7,499,747, entitled External baroreflex activation, to KIEVAL et al].
The present invention uses electrical nerve stimulation to treat headaches, particularly non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation in the neck. According to the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II), there are four types of primary headaches: migraine, tension-type, cluster headache plus other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, and other primary headaches (e.g., cough headache, exertional headache). Additional headache types are recognized, but they are attributable to some causative factor such as head and/or neck trauma, vascular disorder, other intracranial disorders such as hypertension, substance abuse, infection, homeostasis disorder, facial structural problems (e.g., tooth or ear), psychiatric problems, or cranial neuralgia [Jes OLESEN et al. The International Classification of Headache Disorders, Second Edition (ICHD-II). Cephalalgia 24 (Suppl. 1, 2004): 1-160]. An overview of the diagnosis and treatment of primary and some secondary headaches is found in a publication by the British Association for the Study of Headaches (BASH) [T J STEINER, E A MacGregor, P T G Davies. Guidelines for All Healthcare Professionals in the Diagnosis and Management of Migraine, Tension-Type, Cluster and Medication-Overuse Headache, 3rd Edition, 2007. BASH. Department of Neurology, Hull Royal Infirmary, Anlaby Road, Hull HU3 2JZ Great Britain].
The present invention is particularly suitable for the treatment of migraine and cluster headaches, as well as disorders with which those headaches are co-morbid. According to the ICHD-II, migraine is not a homogenous entity, but is instead a group of syndromes, some categories of which are distinguished by the presence of an aura that usually occurs shortly before pain of the headache. The aura typically lasts for 5 minutes to an hour, during which time the patient experiences sensations such as moving zig-zag flashes of light, blind spots or tingling in the hand or face. The features most predictive of the diagnosis of migraine, rather than tension-type headaches, are nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, exacerbation by physical activity and aura. The duration of pain is of little differential diagnostic value for discriminating migraine from tension and other types of headache.
Migraine is highly disabling and costly to society, with an annual prevalence of 6-9% among men and 15-17% among women. It occurs in all age groups but reaches a peak in middle age. Migraine headaches often occur on both sides of the head in children, but an adult pattern of unilateral pain often emerges in adolescence. The pain is often reported as starting in the occipital/neck regions, later becoming frontotemporal. It is throbbing and aggravated by physical effort. Approximately 20-30% of migraine sufferers (migraineurs) experience an aura, ordinarily a visual aura. [Bert B. VARGAS, David W. Dodick. The Face of Chronic Migraine: Epidemiology, Demographics, and Treatment Strategies. Neurol Clin 27 (2009) 467-479; Peter J. GOADSBY, Richard B. Lipton, Michel D. Ferrari. Migraine—Current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med 346 (4, 2002): 257-270; Stephen D SILBERSTEIN. Migraine. LANCET 363 (2004):381-391].
Pharmacological administration of triptans is currently the most effective treatment for acute migraine headaches (Sumatriptan, Zolmitriptan, Naratriptan, Rizatriptan, Eletriptan, Almotriptan, and Frovatriptan). However, only 30-40% of migraineurs are pain-free two hours after the administration of triptans. Of those who do respond, one in three will experience a migraine recurrence within 24 hours. Furthermore, because triptans constrict cranial blood vessels through activation of serotonin 5-HT1B receptors, as a side effect they may also cause vasoconstriction of coronary vessels. Switching to a different triptan might benefit some non-responders, but for many such migraineurs, non-migraine-specific rescue drugs that have significant side effects may be the last and potentially ineffective option (opioids, neuroleptics, and/or corticosteroids). Accordingly, migraine treatment methods are needed that are more effective than triptan pharmaceuticals but that do not exhibit significant side effects [Stephen D Silberstein. Migraine. Lancet 363 (2004):381-391; Peter J GOADSBY, Till Sprenger. Current practice and future directions in the prevention and acute management of migraine. Lancet Neurol 9 (2010): 285-98; Joel R. SAPER, Alvin E. Lake III, Philip A. Bain, et al. A Practice Guide for Continuous Opioid Therapy for Refractory Daily Headache: Patient Selection, Physician Requirements, and Treatment Monitoring. Headache 50 (2010): 1175-1193].
The diagnosis and treatment of migraine is complicated by the potential co-morbidity of migraine with other disorders. Those disorders include ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA), sub-clinical cerebral lesions, coronary heart disease, patent foramen ovale, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, bipolar disorders, restless leg syndrome, obesity, epilepsy (co-morbid with aura), fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and celiac disease [H. C. DIENER, M. Küper, and T. Kurth. Migraine-associated risks and co-morbidity. J Neurol (2008) 255:1290-1301; Shuu-Jiun WANG, Ping-Kun Chen and Jong-Ling Fuh. Co-morbidities of migraine. Frontiers in Neurology 1 (Article 16, 2010): pp. 1-9. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2010.00016; Marcelo E. BIGAL, Richard B. Lipton, Philip R. Holland, Peter J. Goadsby. Obesity, migraine, and chronic migraine. Possible mechanisms of interaction. Neurology 68 (2007): 1851-1861].
Additional disorders that may be co-morbid with migraine comprise allergic rhinitis, sinusitis, and asthma, the co-morbidity of which is largely responsible for the considerable underreporting and misdiagnosis of migraine. According to the American Migraine Study II, half of the individuals diagnosed with migraine did not know they were migraine sufferers before diagnosis, and a misdiagnosis of “sinus headache” (rhinosinusitis), rather than migraine, was made in almost ninety percent of individuals who also had symptoms of facial pain and pressure and/or nasal and sinus congestion. It is estimated that 45% of individuals experiencing a migraine headache have a symptom of either nasal congestion or watery eyes, and this leads to the patient not obtaining treatment for migraine, or to self-treatment with inappropriate, ineffective, or even migraine-enhancing over-the-counter sinus medications [LIPTON R B, Diamond S, Reed M, Diamond M L, Stewart W F. Migraine diagnosis and treatment: results from the American Migraine Study II. Headache 41(7, 2001):638-45; EROSS E, Dodick D, Eross M. The Sinus, Allergy and Migraine Study (SAMS). Headache 47(2, 2007):213-24; Roger K. CADY, David W. Dodick, Howard L. Levine, Curtis P. Schreiber, Eric J. Eross, Michael Setzen, Harvey J. Blumenthal, William R. Lumry, Gary D. Berman, and Paul L. Durham. Sinus Headache: A neurology, otolaryngology, allergy, and primary care consensus on diagnosis and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc. 80(7, 2005):908-916; Mark E. MEHLE and Curtis P. Schreiber. Sinus Headache, Migraine, and the Otolaryngologist. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery 133 (2005): 489-496; Curtis P. SCHREIBER, Susan Hutchinson, Christopher J. Webster,
Michael Ames, Mary S. Richardson, Connie Powers. Prevalence of migraine in patients with a history of self-reported or physician-diagnosed “Sinus” Headache. Arch Intern Med. 164 (2004): 1769-1772; Roger K. CADY and Curtis P. Schreiber. Sinus problems as a cause of headache refractoriness and migraine chronification. Current Pain & Headache Reports 13 (2009): 319-325; Gary ISHKANIAN, Harvey Blumenthal, Christopher J. Webster, Mary S. Richardson, and Michael Ames. Efficacy of sumatriptan tablets in migraineurs self-described or physician-diagnosed as having sinus headache: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Clinical Therapeutics 29 (2007):99-109; Tarannum M. Lateef, Kathleen R. Merikangas, Jianping He, Amanda Kalaydjian, Suzan Khoromi, Erin Knight, and Karin B. Nelson. Headache in a National Sample of American Children: Prevalence and Co-morbidity. J Child Neurol 24(5, 2009): 536-543].
In the American Migraine Study II, 40%-70% of respondents with migraine had co-morbid allergies. Other studies have reported that people with migraine are 2 to 3.5 times more likely to have co-morbid asthma, particularly if they have a parent with migraine and asthma. Allergic rhinitis (hay fever or nasal allergy) is a histamine-driven response to an allergen, such that when exposed to the allergen, the nasal passage becomes inflamed and irritated, resulting in a nasal drip. That histamine release might be involved in triggering migraine headaches, but stress or environmental insults might also independently trigger simultaneous allergic rhinitis and migraine [Min K U, Bernard Silverman, Nausika Prifti, Wei Ying, Yudy Persaud, and Arlene Schneider. Prevalence of migraine headaches in patients with allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 97 (2006):226-230; Gail DAVEY, Philip Sedgwick, Will Maier, George Visick, David P Strachan and H Ross Anderson. Association between migraine and asthma: matched case-control study. British Journal of General Practice 52 (2002): 723-727; AAMODT, A. H., Stovner, L. J., Langhammer, A., Hagen, K., and Zwart, J. A. (2007). Is headache related to asthma, hay fever, and chronic bronchitis? The Head-HUNT Study. Headache 47, 204-212; BECKER, C., Brobert, G. P., Almqvist, P. M., Johansson, S., Jick, S. S., and Meier, C. R. (2008). The risk of newly diagnosed asthma in migraineurs with or without previous triptan prescriptions. Headache 48, 606-610; Vincent T. MARTIN, Fred Taylor, Bruce Gebhardt, Mara Tomaszewski, Joel S. Ellison, Geoffrey V. Martin, Linda Levin, Enas Al-Shaikh, Joseph Nicolas, Jonathan A. Bernstein. Allergy and Immunotherapy: Are They Related to Migraine Headache? Headache 51 (2011):8-20; Mark E. MEHLE. Allergy and migraine: is there a connection? Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery 16 (2008):265-269; ROBBINS L, Maides J, and Shmaryan D. The Immune System and Headache: A Review. The Pain Pract. 19(3, 2009): 47-51].
Thus, a migraineur may exhibit pain that is refractory to treatment using currently available conventional methods. A significant number of migraineurs also exhibit facial pain and pressure, nasal and sinus congestion and/or some other symptom that resembles an immune-mediated response. Although those symptoms may be attributable to migraine co-morbid with allergic rhinitis or some other immune-related disorder, the symptoms may in fact arise from the migraine itself.
The present invention provides novel methods and devices for treating migraine and other primary headaches (particularly cluster headaches), including sinus symptoms that resemble an immune-mediated response, irrespective of whether those symptoms arise from an allergy that is co-morbid with the headache. The disclosed methods may also be used to treat other disorders that may be co-morbid with migraine, such as anxiety disorders, in which the nervous system may also be hyper-reactive and in which attacks may be triggered by some of the same factors that trigger migraine and asthma attacks.